Multiple Hypothesis Tests Controlling Generalized Error Rates for Sequential Data

Jay Bartroff

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1406.5933

Multiple Hypothesis Tests Controlling Generalized Error Rates for Sequential Data

Jay Bartroff

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The $\gamma$-FDP and $k$-FWER multiple testing error metrics, which are tail probabilities of the respective error statistics, have become popular recently as less-stringent alternatives to the FDR and FWER. We propose general and flexible stepup and stepdown procedures for testing multiple hypotheses about sequential (or streaming) data that simultaneously control both the type I and II versions of $\gamma$-FDP, or $k$-FWER. The error control holds regardless of the dependence between data streams, which may be of arbitrary size and shape. All that is needed is a test statistic for each data stream that controls the conventional type I and II error probabilities, and no information or assumptions are required about the joint distribution of the statistics or data streams. The procedures can be used with sequential, group sequential, truncated, or other sampling schemes. We give recommendations for the procedures' implementation including closed-form expressions for the needed critical values in some commonly-encountered testing situations. The proposed sequential procedures are compared with each other and with comparable fixed sample size procedures in the context of strongly positively correlated Gaussian data streams. For this setting we conclude that both the stepup and stepdown sequential procedures provide substantial savings over the fixed sample procedures in terms of expected sample size, and the stepup procedure performs slightly but consistently better than the stepdown for $\gamma$-FDP control, with the relationship reversed for $k$-FWER control.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME math.ST stat.TH

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Jay Bartroff. 2014-06-23. Multiple Hypothesis Tests Controlling Generalized Error Rates for Sequential Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5933

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗